This chapter offers an outline of the Hate Speech Elimination Act and analyses some of its issues. When the Japanese Diet enacted the Hate Speech Elimination Act in 2016, it was the first law to directly tackle hate speech. The law is unusual because while it clearly declares hate speech to be impermissible, it imposes no penalties upon it. On the one hand, one might argue that the Act properly balances equality and freedom of speech; on the other hand, one might question its effect in combating hate speech. It should be emphasized that the Act requests the national and local governments to implement educational activities to eliminate unfair discriminatory speech and behaviour, as well as to raise awareness among the general public about the issue. Such government activities can be interpreted as a type of ‘government speech’, which can be used to discourage and deter hate speech while avoiding constitutional problems. As such, the Japanese Act may present a modest model that strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and anti-racism.

Even though the three different judgments rendered in Kyoto Korean Elementary School – one criminal, by Kyoto District Criminal Court, and two civil, by Kyoto District Court and the Osaka High Court – are generally all perceived to be responses to the hate speech demonstrations that targeted the school, there is a significant difference between the three. This comparative analysis of the three judicial rulings offers important insights into how best victimization might be addressed through judicial responses. The reaction of the teachers and parents of the school exposes the limitations of a punitive approach in terms of restoring the trust of a victims in a majority Japanese community and a sense of inclusion within that community. While relationships are built over generations by shared understanding of the history of the minority Zainichi ethnic group in Japan, the punitive approach acts as a barrier to that understanding, undermining the trust so built. This chapter therefore suggests that the compensatory approach in tort, in line with the position of the Japanese Supreme Court, is likely to be more effective in remedying damage and restoring trust.